Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hawkins

91 F.2d 354

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1937-07-16
Topic
general

FOSTER, Circuit Judge. This case presents merely a question of whether petitioners were entitled to take a deduction on their returns from 1932 for a loss occasioned by the foreclosure of a mortgage and consequent sale of a large tract of land in California in 1931. The facts are not in dispute. The Board in a well-considered opinion, reported in 34 B. T.A. 918, carefully reviewed the law and held that the loss did not occur until the end of the redemption period in 1932.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Hawkins. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWKINS,91 F.2d 354(5th Cir. 1937)
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. HAWKINS et al.
No. 8397.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 16, 1937.
Petition for Review of Decisions of the United States Board of Tax Appeals.

Petition by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to review a decision of the United States Board of Tax Appeals redetermining tax imposed against J.C. Hawkins and others.

Petition denied, and judgment of Board affirmed.
Berryman Green and Sewall Key, Sp. Assts. to the Atty. Gen., James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Morrison Shafroth, Chief Counsel, Bureau of Internal Revenue, and Charles H. Curl, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, both of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Ben D. Clower, of Tyler, Tex., for respondents.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
This case presents merely a question of whether petitioners were entitled to take a deduction on their returns from 1932 for a loss occasioned by the foreclosure of a mortgage and consequent sale of a large tract of land in California in 1931. The facts are not in dispute. The Board in a well-considered opinion, reported in34 B.T.A. 918, carefully reviewed the law and held that the loss did not occur until the end of the redemption period in 1932.

We concur in the ruling of the Board. The petition is denied and the judgment of the Board is affirmed.Page 377